rrmoderator -
I have to say, I am confused by your noting that I have not provided evidence to support my opinions (which, by the definition of the word, are not empirical and therefore do not require evidence) while at the same time asking me to answer empirical questions for which I would not be able to provide evidence. It is inexplicable.
Nonetheless, I don't recall defending either Landmark or Werner Erhard. I was making a point about your having asserted a causal link between two independent statements without providing evidence for causality - and then asking me to disprove your unsubstantiated connection. Your assertion that this connection is backed up by evidence would suggest that you don't understand what it means to provide causal evidence. That is fair enough - causality is a fairly nuanced concept and not well-understood by the general public.
I don't know your educational or professional background, but the way you have been discussing evidence in this conversation suggests, and I mean no offense by this, that you lack formal training in evidence gathering.
For the sake of engagement, here's an example:
In the second link you posted, there are a few key things to highlight. First, "Erhard didn't practice what he preached. Second, "...Werner Erhard never embodied his own training." Third, from a former president of est, "Erhard never lived up to his potential."
Notice that none of these quotes say. None of them say, "Erhard implemented the methodology and it failed him." What they say is, rather, Erhard didn't implement the methodology. (The first one almost literally says exactly that.) He didn't do the work! That is curious, to be sure, given that he invented the work. It is not, however, evidence that the methodology is ineffective. (Nor is it evidence that it is effective! It is an altogether lack of evidence.)
Again, I have no interest in defending Werner Erhard. If what I wrote above comes off as a personal defense of him, please know it is not. It is an attempt to clarify the nature of causal evidence, as you assert the existence of causal evidence that you have not provided.
There is nothing I saw in the links you provided that questions the overall effectiveness of the methodology when it is implemented as designed. Rather, the articles question, among other things, the extent to which Erhard himself practiced his own methodology. (And if there is something that suggests the methodology itself is not effective, please feel free to cite it here. I am open to the idea that I missed something.)
Beyond that...you are correct that I have not offered anything objective or scientifically measured. Of course, I never said I would offer such a thing! It is an odd thing to be accused of not doing something I never said I would do.
What I did say I would do is discuss my own personal experience. I'm still happy to do that! You're welcome to ask me literally anything about my own experience, if you like.
However, if you are going to continue to ask me to prove or disprove statements that have absolutely nothing to do with my own experience, you are, as they say, going to have a bad time.
I have to say, I am confused by your noting that I have not provided evidence to support my opinions (which, by the definition of the word, are not empirical and therefore do not require evidence) while at the same time asking me to answer empirical questions for which I would not be able to provide evidence. It is inexplicable.
Nonetheless, I don't recall defending either Landmark or Werner Erhard. I was making a point about your having asserted a causal link between two independent statements without providing evidence for causality - and then asking me to disprove your unsubstantiated connection. Your assertion that this connection is backed up by evidence would suggest that you don't understand what it means to provide causal evidence. That is fair enough - causality is a fairly nuanced concept and not well-understood by the general public.
I don't know your educational or professional background, but the way you have been discussing evidence in this conversation suggests, and I mean no offense by this, that you lack formal training in evidence gathering.
For the sake of engagement, here's an example:
In the second link you posted, there are a few key things to highlight. First, "Erhard didn't practice what he preached. Second, "...Werner Erhard never embodied his own training." Third, from a former president of est, "Erhard never lived up to his potential."
Notice that none of these quotes say. None of them say, "Erhard implemented the methodology and it failed him." What they say is, rather, Erhard didn't implement the methodology. (The first one almost literally says exactly that.) He didn't do the work! That is curious, to be sure, given that he invented the work. It is not, however, evidence that the methodology is ineffective. (Nor is it evidence that it is effective! It is an altogether lack of evidence.)
Again, I have no interest in defending Werner Erhard. If what I wrote above comes off as a personal defense of him, please know it is not. It is an attempt to clarify the nature of causal evidence, as you assert the existence of causal evidence that you have not provided.
There is nothing I saw in the links you provided that questions the overall effectiveness of the methodology when it is implemented as designed. Rather, the articles question, among other things, the extent to which Erhard himself practiced his own methodology. (And if there is something that suggests the methodology itself is not effective, please feel free to cite it here. I am open to the idea that I missed something.)
Beyond that...you are correct that I have not offered anything objective or scientifically measured. Of course, I never said I would offer such a thing! It is an odd thing to be accused of not doing something I never said I would do.
What I did say I would do is discuss my own personal experience. I'm still happy to do that! You're welcome to ask me literally anything about my own experience, if you like.
However, if you are going to continue to ask me to prove or disprove statements that have absolutely nothing to do with my own experience, you are, as they say, going to have a bad time.